Really? Because this certainly reads like the "anyone" can do it argument. Unless "anyone" and "easily replaced with little drop off" are completely different.
Every time they say "Oh Kunitz was a perfect fit with Crosby" and such well the exact same thing has happened year after year whether it's him, Sheary, Simon or any other guy. These guys are all fill ins with a superstar and can be replaced easily by someone else with little drop off
Oh, and inserting Haley is just as much of a straw man here, if not more.
Haley succeeding literally means anyone can succeed.
Kunitz, Neal, Dupuis, et al succeeding literally means that you need to have at least moderate offensive ability to succeed.
One is a straw man argument. One is not.
Are you equating one of the biggest stars of the league and a true generational player with Panarin?
I am equating his production to one of the biggest stars of the league and a true generational player because he is on pace to out-produce the best season of one of biggest stars of the league and a true generational player.
That is how good Panarin has been this season. And that is how outrageous his production has been. He is on pace for 122 points.
If you have a problem with the comparison, you can take it up with math.
What are you asking me? Do I want to resign Strome for $5m or do I believe that any ole' UFA signed for $2.5 will have the same effect as Strome?
The answer is, yes, term dependent, I would resign Strome for $5m. And no, I do not believe that anyone else that we sign for $2.5 will probably be just as effective.
1) Strome's extension likely STARTS at 5m, unless he takes a huge discount or he stops producing.
2) Stromes likely replacement would be Chytil, who will probably sign for half of what Strome signs for. Or are we planning on keeping Chytil at 3C forever?
3) Replacing priced out players with cheaper versions (usually younger players on ELCs or their first extension) is how it works in a cap world. Why are you acting like this shocking?
When he was scoring last year, it was dismissed out of hand as having an abnormally high shooting percentage. A stat that completley ignores many factors (ice time, PP time, linemates, player growth, etc.). This year, before Panrin, it was the percentage again. Then, when being paired with Panarin, it went to "It's Panarin. Anyone can make those passes to him". Fact is that Strome is a former top-5 pick who has done nothing but produce since he got here. I am not claiming that he is some sort of 70 point player, but at some point you cannot simply keep making excuses for production and laugh Strome off.
Yes I am sure his shooting percentage was one of the highest of the entire 21st century because he grew as a player.
Anyway, even if you disregard his Oilers start he was on an 82 game pace for 23 goals, 20 assists and 43 points last year, and he had 4 assists and zero goals in 7 games before getting put with Panarin, so saying he has "done nothing but produce" is being extremely generous.
He has 18 goals and 16 assists for 34 points in 70 games without Panarin.
He has 12 goals and 26 assists for 38 points in 38 games with Panarin.
That is a rather large difference in production.
I mean, that is fine production for someone making 3m a year. Not great production, especially if that player is not good defensively, but not awful. But that is also pretty horrific "when are we buying this guy out" production for someone making 5m-6m a year.
Again, I get the pro-Strome argument. What I don't get is how the anti-Strome argument can be laughed off. Signing a guy to a large and long term contract just to play with one guy is a potentially dangerous move. I'd be shocked if Gorton and co. don't have the same fears.
